Can We be Reasonably Certain That God Wants Us to Follow a Specific Morality?

[lewisnotmiller]

Even if we assume that god exists and even if we assume that it wants us to follow a specific morality, can we be reasonably certain that god wants us to follow that specific morality?

If so, then by what means or method do we know that god wants us to follow a specific morality?

I have trouble envisaging a 'specific morality' even assuming God. Can't get past the idea that morality is contextual/subjective.

 

[illykitty]

I have no idea but I highly doubt that the morality would be set in stone, after all, different circumstances can permit certain things that in other ones would make no sense to do and/or be unethical. If I were a deity, I'd want humans to evolve, for their morality to progress with time. It makes no sense to command rules which may be practical in ancient times and then ask humanity to apply them for eternity, even in modern society.

Let's take an example, restricting a woman's freedom during her periods. Might have made sense in ancient times, you don't want contamination and you want a hygienic society. Makes no sense to apply this to a modern advanced society. There's probably many rules like this that could had some valid reasoning in historical context, but today it's nonsense.

I could have chosen a more dramatic example but I'd rather avoid being in a debate and making this thread derail (as they often do). You can see that setting morality in stone is a bad idea because society changes, circumstances change, we have science and medicine which means we live longer on average. We have to adapt and evolve to these things. If there's some god, I can't imagine it wanting us to remain the same as people were in ancient times. Those weren't nice times at all...

 

[Kirran]

I must say, and i apologise for being so forth-coming, but speculating about Lord Visnu will get one nowhere. He is beyond this distinction. I apologise my answer is unsatisfactory, i am no advanced devotee.

Yes, this is what I'd think, which is why I find it odd that followers of many faiths, perhaps more strikingly within Vaishnavism but also elsewhere in Dharmic and Abrahamic traditions, try to define and explain God so much.

It appears to me that there must be something which led you to believe that this form is the ultimate form of the Supreme, that this form, and no other, is the form of God Almighty, in a way which all others are not. I suppose I am trying to find out what that something was.

Again, He has done this innumerable times, his other forms you speak of are Lord Krsna, Lord Ramachandra, Lord Narasimha, and many more. They are taken out of His causeless mercy.

OK, that's a fair point. What do you make of people, then, who understand themselves to have experienced God in the form of Shiva, Jesus, yadda yadda?

All jivas in the material world are conditioned, through Vasudeva's maya, and their karmic records. Could you give me a definition of 'conditioned'? If you mean Narayana has complete influence over all chit, yes, all chit and achit is conditioned, whether in samsara or not.

Apologies for being a dummy

By conditioned here I'm meaning attributed, basically. Being anything other than utterly devoid of attribute and limitation. I'm not so good on explaining here cos some of this is coming out of my own personal experience, although this is in line with more nondualist understandings. As a result of that stuff, my view of chit is radically different to the one you espouse here, which is essentially defining consciousness as a substance, it seems.

 

[Terese]

Yes, this is what I'd think, which is why I find it odd that followers of many faiths, perhaps more strikingly within Vaishnavism but also elsewhere in Dharmic and Abrahamic traditions, try to define and explain God so much.

Yes, that is true. But it's always good to get a grasp on what God is, like the terms avatara or Para-Vasudeva. But we cannot explain the unexplainable, why, Sri Ramanujacharya said God cannot be inferred; and so, it would be best to simply surrender to Him, stop all labels, shake our heads and say 'Neti Neti'

It appears to me that there must be something which led you to believe that this form is the ultimate form of the Supreme, that this form, and no other, is the form of God Almighty, in a way which all others are not. I suppose I am trying to find out what that something was.

From what i have found of our scriptures, it all clearly says that Narayana is Supreme, from The Vedas to the Puranas. Also, i apologise if i am getting too personal, but i have a strong attraction to Lord Visnu's four armed form. Long story. I could pm you if you weren't half asleep already

OK, that's a fair point. What do you make of people, then, who understand themselves to have experienced God in the form of Shiva, Jesus, yadda yadda?

I think of what Lord Krsna said in the Bhagavad Gita:

"I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity."

Here is Ramanujacharya's commentary on the verse:

Whomsoever wishes to worship the demigods, the Supreme Lord sanctions that they have unwavering and stable faith in that endeavour because that very faith is given to that which is a part of my universal form and constitutes the Supreme Lord Krishna's body.

By conditioned here I'm meaning attributed, basically. Being anything other than utterly devoid of attribute and limitation. I'm not so good on explaining here cos some of this is coming out of my own personal experience, although this is in line with more nondualist understandings. As a result of that stuff, my view of chit is radically different to the one you espouse here, which is essentially defining consciousness as a substance, it seems.

In Visistadvaita, we are all attributes, or modes, of Brahman. Yes, our conception of chit is quite different, and a tad confusing, so i will hand it over to a Sri Vaisnava site explaining what i meant in the above. (I would like to know what you think of it )

"Sri Ramanuja states that in so far as mere existence is concerned - the inanimate universe, the jivas and Brahman- all three exist. However, the inanimate universe exists as a mere mode (prakara) of Brahman at the time of the Dissolution of the Universe (pralaya), and is absorbed in Brahman, only to be again made manifest later. The jivas too are dormant in the time of pralaya and in the manifest state of the universe, they can be either in the released state or in the bonded state. The latter souls, in the course of time, and with the practice of the means of salvation, eventually attain salvation. Thus, it is clear that the inanimate Universe, as well as the jivas, do undergo some change in their states and that this change is effected by Brahman, who Himself is ever the same and does not undergo any change. Therefore, it is Brahman Who is the Truth of truth (satyasya satya).

Coming to jnana or consciousness, the inanimate universe is bereft of the same. The jivas possess consciousness no doubt, but their consciousness is contracted in their state of bondage. On the other hand, Brahman is ever released and so unlike the jivas, He possesses infinite knowledge at all times.

The third attribute is anantatva or infiniteness. The jivas are finite in extent and even after they attain salvation, it is only their knowledge that becomes infinite. On the contrary, Brahman is infinite in extent and His excellent qualities are present to an infinite degree.

The fourth attribute namely ananda or bliss does not require much elaboration. Brahman is full of bliss eternally whereas the jivas do not possess the same in their state of bondage, but do so upon liberation."

 

[LuisDantas]

Even if we assume that god exists and even if we assume that it wants us to follow a specific morality, can we be reasonably certain that god wants us to follow that specific morality?

I don't think so.

Or, at least, if we take those specific premises (very much against my best advice), then we must conclude that God for whatever reasons also wants us to disregard scriptures and learn and develop our morality by other means.

If so, then by what means or method do we know that god wants us to follow a specific morality?

We don't. Morality is a continuous, permanent but ultimately workable challenge imposed by sentience. Whether there is a God and whether he relates to morality in any significant way are much dicer and far less consequential matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have trouble envisaging a 'specific morality' even assuming God. Can't get past the idea that morality is contextual/subjective.

Do you think God would be helpful in delimiting a morality?

 

[Kirran]

Yes, that is true. But it's always good to get a grasp on what God is, like the terms avatara or Para-Vasudeva. But we cannot explain the unexplainable, why, Sri Ramanujacharya said God cannot be inferred; and so, it would be best to simply surrender to Him, stop all labels, shake our heads and say 'Neti Neti'

Yeah, so I agree absolutely. Hence my confusion!

From what i have found of our scriptures, it all clearly says that Narayana is Supreme, from The Vedas to the Puranas. Also, i apologise if i am getting too personal, but i have a strong attraction to Lord Visnu's four armed form. Long story. I could pm you if you weren't half asleep already

Well there are certainly varying views on that, and what it means, but why do you take them as authoritative anyway? I am not saying I don't, but to further drill into this.

Not too personal at all! We may well be getting to the crux of the issue with your personal experience of the form of Vishnu. PM away. I am half asleep, but that's just because I got back from uni and had a nap and am a little groggy still

I'm reminded of something Sw. Vivekananda wrote about bhakti, where he talked about something to watch out for in the early stages of bhakti was that people get so fixated on the aspect of their own devotion that they deny others for a time. This is still a very genuine part of that path of love though.

I think of what Lord Krsna said in the Bhagavad Gita:

"I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity."

Here is Ramanujacharya's commentary on the verse:

Whomsoever wishes to worship the demigods, the Supreme Lord sanctions that they have unwavering and stable faith in that endeavour because that very faith is given to that which is a part of my universal form and constitutes the Supreme Lord Krishna's body.

Yeah so of course this is in translation, so I'd see these demigods referred to here as different forms by which the Supreme allows us to approach.

In Visistadvaita, we are all attributes, or modes, of Brahman. Yes, our conception of chit is quite different, and a tad confusing, so i will hand it over to a Sri Vaisnava site explaining what i meant in the above. (I would like to know what you think of it )

"Sri Ramanuja states that in so far as mere existence is concerned - the inanimate universe, the jivas and Brahman- all three exist. However, the inanimate universe exists as a mere mode (prakara) of Brahman at the time of the Dissolution of the Universe (pralaya), and is absorbed in Brahman, only to be again made manifest later. The jivas too are dormant in the time of pralaya and in the manifest state of the universe, they can be either in the released state or in the bonded state. The latter souls, in the course of time, and with the practice of the means of salvation, eventually attain salvation. Thus, it is clear that the inanimate Universe, as well as the jivas, do undergo some change in their states and that this change is effected by Brahman, who Himself is ever the same and does not undergo any change. Therefore, it is Brahman Who is the Truth of truth (satyasya satya).

Coming to jnana or consciousness, the inanimate universe is bereft of the same. The jivas possess consciousness no doubt, but their consciousness is contracted in their state of bondage. On the other hand, Brahman is ever released and so unlike the jivas, He possesses infinite knowledge at all times.

The third attribute is anantatva or infiniteness. The jivas are finite in extent and even after they attain salvation, it is only their knowledge that becomes infinite. On the contrary, Brahman is infinite in extent and His excellent qualities are present to an infinite degree.

The fourth attribute namely ananda or bliss does not require much elaboration. Brahman is full of bliss eternally whereas the jivas do not possess the same in their state of bondage, but do so upon liberation."

OK, yeah, I'm seeing how a lot of this relates. I am, however, somewhat perplexed by the separate, if dependent, existence of jivas and of the inanimate - has this been experientially verified in some manner? Or is it purely an interpretation of shastra? If the former, I can see it making sense out of experience of Brahman without a concurrent shift of self-identification from ahamkara to atman. Lots of subtlety here, obviously!

What do you understand happens to a jiva following moksha? Can one obtain God-Realisation while living, or this comes after death only?

Jnana or consciousness - interesting! In Vishishtadvaita, are cittam and jnanam seen as synonymous?

AUM Tat Sat, Hari AUM.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you think God would be helpful in delimiting a morality?

Only in so far as being a judge of the contextual decisions made. Communicating 'morality' seems impossible at a specific detailed level.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I know of no reasonable means or method of inquiry that would allow us to know that god wants us to follow a specific morality.

Hey, Sunstone!
You might not like this answer, but the Bible. All of it, but especially the guidelines for Christians. How can we verify it? To some extent, by our own self, our conscience. If we are 'made in God's image,' then it stands to reason that following his counsel would help us feel good about ourselves, and would be physically healthy for us.

 

[Kirran]

Hey, Sunstone!
You might not like this answer, but the Bible. All of it, but especially the guidelines for Christians. How can we verify it? To some extent, by our own self, our conscience. If we are 'made in God's image,' then it stands to reason that following his counsel would help us feel good about ourselves, and would be physically healthy for us.

I feel good about myself and physically healthy following dharmic morality though!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I feel good about myself and physically healthy following dharmic morality though!

That's great!

Let me ask you this: do you see any benefit, for yourself and for society, in refraining from non-committal sexual activity, just having sex with someone 'because you want to'?

I see the benefit, as outlined in the Bible -- i.e., only between married partners; Strength of the family unit, and well-grounded children (for the most part). But, apparently, most of the world doesn't, nowadays. Not even many professed Christians.

Are there any other written religious codes, like the Baghavad Gita for example, that prohibit sex outside of marriage?

 

[Kirran]

That's great!

Let me ask you this: do you see any benefit, for yourself and for society, in refraining from non-committal sexual activity, just having sex with someone 'because you want to'?

I see the benefit, as outlined in the Bible -- i.e., only between married partners; Strength of the family unit, and well-grounded children (for the most part). But, apparently, most of the world doesn't, nowadays. Not even many professed Christians.

Are there any other written religious codes, like the Baghavad Gita for example, that prohibit sex outside of marriage?

I can see the benefits of keeping it to committed relationships, and I think that all-out promiscuity is probably somewhat unhealthy for the individual and the society. If people are in an established relationship (not necessarily marriage - I think people can be healthily committed even if it's not to that degree, and then there are couples like my parents who have been together for 25 years without having married) it's probably somewhat better, but even then it depends on the nature of the relationship - is it really making love, or is it more about satisfaction, or habit, or whatever else?

Having said that, I think that if people are getting into "one-night stands" etc then in many cases that's something for them to do, learn from and then move past in their maturation. Not something to forbid.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn't really go into mundane matters - it's more about how you come to know God and live a life conscious of God.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I can see the benefits of keeping it to committed relationships, and I think that all-out promiscuity is probably somewhat unhealthy for the individual and the society. If people are in an established relationship (not necessarily marriage - I think people can be healthily committed even if it's not to that degree, and then there are couples like my parents who have been together for 25 years without having married) it's probably somewhat better, but even then it depends on the nature of the relationship - is it really making love, or is it more about satisfaction, or habit, or whatever else?

Having said that, I think that if people are getting into "one-night stands" etc then in many cases that's something for them to do, learn from and then move past in their maturation. Not something to forbid.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn't really go into mundane matters - it's more about how you come to know God and live a life conscious of God.

Thanks for the reply!

Here is something else to consider. Remembering the Bible also gives advice on how to treat others, including husbands to wives, and wives to husbands, following the guidelines builds strong relationships. (Ex.: Philippians 2:3-4)
That being said, if one-night stands were prohibited, and laws on adultery were enforced, spouses might view their partners more valuable, and work harder at their relationship, applying Biblical guidelines, thereby giving their children an increased sense of security, raised in love, and given a moral foundation on which to build their future relationships.

There would be fewer criminals, I guarantee it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I can see the benefits of keeping it to committed relationships, and I think that all-out promiscuity is probably somewhat unhealthy for the individual and the society. If people are in an established relationship (not necessarily marriage - I think people can be healthily committed even if it's not to that degree, and then there are couples like my parents who have been together for 25 years without having married) it's probably somewhat better, but even then it depends on the nature of the relationship - is it really making love, or is it more about satisfaction, or habit, or whatever else?

Having said that, I think that if people are getting into "one-night stands" etc then in many cases that's something for them to do, learn from and then move past in their maturation. Not something to forbid.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn't really go into mundane matters - it's more about how you come to know God and live a life conscious of God.

Also, to add to the previous post, making oneself abstain from sexual conduct builds up the person's self-control, a good quality to cultivate.

(Thanks for the correction in spelling Bhagavad Gita.)

Take care, my cousin!

 

[4M17]

Correct, they aren't Vaisnavas. That ISKCON man, while happily proclaiming Smartha ideas, is doing just that, and is committing Vaisnava apradha by equalling Lord Siva and/or Parvati/Shakti/Durga to Lord Krsna.

ur right..feel like tht ISKCON MAN WRONGLY EXPLAIN something or some misunderstanding or whatever...I feel concerned by this since I follow iskcon as well n be sure that its not iskcon teaching...rated 2nd as most offensive is equating any demigod(even shiva or brahma) to Krishna or Vishnu..Krishna/Vishnu is supreme and every1 is subordinate to him thts the basic teaching of Iskcon..

 

[4M17]

Well they seem quite mutually exclusive to me - if the form of Vishnu is one taken by the Lord, then it is not his original form, whereas if it is his ultimate form then it's not one he's taking but his real nature.

If it is the ultimate form, then this seems strikingly akin to the classical monotheist 'tribal king ramped up to 11' image of the Divine - i.e. a personage who is like a ruler with all positive attributes maximised that is the universe's most powerful agent.



Well if Lord Vishnu is a form taken by the Lord, then there's no reason he wouldn't take other forms out of His love.



OK, let's step back - is cittam in some way a substance which can be conditioned? Is a jivatma conditioned chittam? Or is it impossible to condition cittam?

Haha, that's cool, I'm not the best at questioning It is likely Vaishnava theology/philosophy rather than its explanation!

God has a form which is supreme..the lord is not formless..God is the Energetic and his effulgence(impersonal aspect - brahman) is His energy that pervades everything..Having His original form n taking innumerable forms does not make Him many but still he remains one but deals with His devotees in different moods...All the forms of God mentioned in as Rama/Krishna/Varaha/Nrsimha are all eternal n eternally existing before & will ever exist since they are all eternal...don't 4get that Vaikuntha is unlimitedly expansive without any end and there are innumerable vaikuntha planets there where the Lord associate with his devotees in different moods but still remains one..all the presiding deities of the innumerable vaikuntha planets are Chatur bhuja form even Varaha, Nrsimha..devotees attracted to some particular leela of the Lord dedicate themselves to the mood associated to those leela n goes to serve the Lord to the vaikuntha planet where the Lord displays those passtimes for the pleasure of His Devotees..His form is sat chit Ananda vigraha..

Some of BG verses which declares God as very personal
Translation of Bhagavad Gita 7.24
avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 7.25
nāhaḿ prakāśaḥ sarvasya
yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ
mūḍho ’yaḿ nābhijānāti
loko mām ajam avyayam

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible.

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 7.26
vedāhaḿ samatītāni
vartamānāni cārjuna
bhaviṣyāṇi ca bhūtāni
māḿ tu veda na kaścana

O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 9.11
avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā
mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

..Chapter twelve of BG explains the personal/impersonal aspect & the best way of worship.

 

[Kirran]

God has a form which is supreme..the lord is not formless..God is the Energetic and his effulgence(impersonal aspect - brahman) is His energy that pervades everything..Having His original form n taking innumerable forms does not make Him many but still he remains one but deals with His devotees in different moods...All the forms of God mentioned in as Rama/Krishna/Varaha/Nrsimha are all eternal n eternally existing before & will ever exist since they are all eternal...don't 4get that Vaikuntha is unlimitedly expansive without any end and there are innumerable vaikuntha planets there where the Lord associate with his devotees in different moods but still remains one..all the presiding deities of the innumerable vaikuntha planets are Chatur bhuja form even Varaha, Nrsimha..devotees attracted to some particular leela of the Lord dedicate themselves to the mood associated to those leela n goes to serve the Lord to the vaikuntha planet where the Lord displays those passtimes for the pleasure of His Devotees..His form is sat chit Ananda vigraha..

Some of BG verses which declares God as very personal
Translation of Bhagavad Gita 7.24
avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 7.25
nāhaḿ prakāśaḥ sarvasya
yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ
mūḍho ’yaḿ nābhijānāti
loko mām ajam avyayam

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible.

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 7.26
vedāhaḿ samatītāni
vartamānāni cārjuna
bhaviṣyāṇi ca bhūtāni
māḿ tu veda na kaścana

O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows

Translation of Bhagavad Gita 9.11
avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā
mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

..Chapter twelve of BG explains the personal/impersonal aspect & the best way of worship.

I find the BG a really beautiful text. Much of what you are saying makes sense. However, I'd like to advise that it's better to say 'Us Gaudiyas believe...' or 'In my opinion...' or 'Under these interpretations...' rather than make outright statements, as per religiousforums.com's anti-preaching rules!

When you say those different forms of God (Rama, Krishna, Narasimha...) and that devotees might associate themselves with the mood of different forms, would you include Shiva and Subramanium and Mataji, or no?

 

[Kirran]

Thanks for the reply!

Here is something else to consider. Remembering the Bible also gives advice on how to treat others, including husbands to wives, and wives to husbands, following the guidelines builds strong relationships. (Ex.: Philippians 2:3-4)
That being said, if one-night stands were prohibited, and laws on adultery were enforced, spouses might view their partners more valuable, and work harder at their relationship, applying Biblical guidelines, thereby giving their children an increased sense of security, raised in love, and given a moral foundation on which to build their future relationships.

There would be fewer criminals, I guarantee it.

Banning something is unlikely to change people's opinions on it. Just makes it a matter of law. It has to be a matter of values for people to change.

 

[4M17]

I find the BG a really beautiful text. Much of what you are saying makes sense. However, I'd like to advise that it's better to say 'Us Gaudiyas believe...' or 'In my opinion...' or 'Under these interpretations...' rather than make outright statements, as per religiousforums.com's anti-preaching rules!

When you say those different forms of God (Rama, Krishna, Narasimha...) and that devotees might associate themselves with the mood of different forms, would you include Shiva and Subramanium and Mataji, or no?

lol fine - IMHO ;-)
hmm not really coz they r not in the same category as Vishnu(God) v r demigods category subordinate to Him and they are also His devotees as well..in fact Devas are empowered being by God in order to carry out material affairs of the material world...
Vishnu tattva is associated to God's category and we are jivas(marginal potency)..

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Banning something is unlikely to change people's opinions on it. Just makes it a matter of law. It has to be a matter of values for people to change.

Agreed! People have to want to change; it has to come from their heart, I.e., be genuine. So, I guess it ain't gonna happen, on its own.

Take care.